Suppa v. Toronto Catholic District School Board, 2009 HRTO 1954

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Vincenzo Suppa

Applicant

-and-

Toronto Catholic District School Board, Jan Stalony, Paul Deighan and Suzy Kawasaki

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Kaye Joachim

Date: November 18, 2009

Citation: 2009 HRTO 1954

Indexed as: Suppa v. Toronto Catholic District School Board

1This is an Application filed December 23, 2008 under section 53(3) of Part VI of the Ontario Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”). The Case Resolution Conference (hearing) in this matter is scheduled for November 23 and 24, 2009. This Interim Decision addresses a disputed attempt to expand the subject matter of the Application.

2The complaint which underlies the current Application was filed with the Ontario Human Rights Commission (“Commission”) on March 9, 2007. In this complaint the applicant alleges that since his accident of January 29, 2001 and resulting disability, the respondent Stalony has harassed the applicant by overly scrutinizing and monitoring his work. When the applicant complained of harassment, the employer moved the applicant to another location in February 2007. As a remedy the applicant sought to stop Mr. Stalony's monitoring and return to his previous work location.

3In his statement of additional facts, the applicant has raised additional allegations including an alleged demotion in 2003, improper use of confidential medical information, denial of vacation requests, requirement to complete work logs and provide a doctor’s note after one day’s absence, threats of discipline and discharge, mocking of disability by Stalony, racial slurs, and failure to investigate the applicant’s multiple complaints.

4The transitional provisions of the Code provide that the subject matter of the Application must relate to the original complaint. Accordingly, any post-complaint events (post March 2007) do not form the subject matter of the present Application.

5In my view, the statement of additional facts is an attempt to alter the subject matter of the original complaint filed in March 2007. That complaint contained a simple allegation of over-monitoring of the applicant and harassment by respondent Stalony, for an undefined period but potentially dating back to the 2001 accident and that is the subject matter of the Application. In addition, the allegation that the respondent failed to adequately respond to the alleged harassment also forms part of the subject mater of the present Application

6Nothing in this Interim Decision affects the applicant’s ability to file a fresh application with the Tribunal pursuant to s. 34 of the Code, provided the other requirements of that section have been met.